Bill Farion v. Cruise North Expeditions Inc., 2010 HRTO 637

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bill Farion

Applicant

-and-

Cruise North Expeditions Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: March 24, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 637

Indexed as: Farion v. Cruise North Expeditions

APPEARANCES

Bill Farion, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

Cruise North Expeditions Inc., Respondent ) Adam Goodman, Counsel

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent cruise company offered a 50% discount in 2009 that applied only to individuals sharing a cabin, and not to individuals occupying a cabin alone (and paying the single supplement). The applicant alleges that this constitutes discrimination on the basis of marital status and age. He argues that married people are more likely to have a partner to travel with and that older people are more likely to be widowed or divorced. He states that he was willing to pay the single supplement, but believes that, under the Code, the 50% discount should be offered off both the single and double occupancy prices.

2The cruise in question is in the Canadian north. A charter flight goes from Montréal to meet the cruise. All cabins on the cruise ship have two berths. If an individual is willing to share a cabin, they will be charged the double occupancy rate. The applicant, however, did not want to share a cabin.

3The respondent is a subsidiary of the Makivik company, as is Air Inuit, which operates the charter flights. At the time the applicant sought to book, the cost for single occupancy was $7,743.74 plus tax for the cruise and $2,300 for the airfare (all prices are in U.S. dollars). With the 50% discount, the cost for each person taking the cruise with double occupancy was $3,097.50 plus tax for the cruise ($6,195 for two people) plus airfare of $2,300 ($4,600 for two people). The applicant therefore would have had to pay more for the cruise portion of the trip than the two people travelling together would have paid. Together with airfare, his trip would have cost several hundred dollars less than the price for two people travelling together.

4The respondent argues that the Application does not raise the grounds of marital status or age. It notes that an individual without a spouse can travel with a companion or pay the double occupancy rate. It also notes that the business rationale for offering the discount is that the affiliated charter air company will then have a further customer paying the full airfare and that more customers on board the cruise ship leads to more sales of items on the ship and during stops.

5I find that the Application must be dismissed, as the applicant has not shown that it raises the grounds of marital status or age. The applicant has not established a connection between travelling alone and marital status or age, and there is no basis to take judicial notice of this fact. Since the allegations of age discrimination are based on the suggestion that older people are less likely to have a spouse, the claim of age discrimination must also fail. Moreover, I have difficulty seeing how there can be discrimination when the respondent will charge those without a travelling companion the double occupancy rate if they are willing to share a cabin.

6The applicant has not shown that offering a discount to people who are willing to share a two-person cabin, whether with a spouse, a travelling companion, or another traveller raises any prohibited grounds under the Code. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.